Constructivism – Jessie Delia

Constructivism – Jessie Delia This theory last appeared in the 8th Edition

The following document is an archived chapter with end notes

from a previous edition of A First Look at Communication Theory

by Em Griffin, the leading college text in the field of communication theory

(all editions published by McGraw-Hill).

The theory is no longer covered in a full chapter of the current edition. This document is posted on the resource website for the text

www.afirstlook.com

All material is copyright © Em Griffin or used by permission of the copyright holder (Note that some cartoons reproduced in the textbook

could not be included in the archived documents because copyright permission does not extend to online use.)

98

8CHAPTER

Constructivism of Jesse Delia

Constructivism is a communication theory that seeks to explain individual dif-ferences in people’s ability to communicate skillfully in social situations. You probably don’t need to be convinced that some people are better at understand-ing, attracting, persuading, informing, comforting, or entertaining others with whom they talk. In fact, you may be taking communication courses so that you can become more adept at reaching these communication goals. Although some might suspect that communication success is simply a matter of becoming more assertive or outgoing, Jesse Delia believes that there is a crucial behind-the-eyes difference in people who are interpersonally effective. His theory of constructiv-ism offers a cognitive explanation for communication competence. Delia is the former chair of the department of speech communication at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and now serves as the executive direc-tor of international research relations at the school. Along with a network of con-structivist researchers, he uses Walter Crockett’s open-ended Role Category Questionnaire (RCQ) to help us “get inside our head.” 1 So that you fully understand the theory and what it says about your communication, take 10 minutes to respond to the RCQ before you become sensitized to what the survey is measuring.

●

Objective Interpretive

Socio-psychological traditionRhetorical tradition

ROLE CATEGORY QUESTIONNAIRE INSTRUCTIONS

Think of people about your age whom you know well. Select one person you like and pick someone you dislike. Once you have two specifi c people in mind, spend a moment to mentally compare and contrast them in terms of personality, habits, beliefs, and the way they treat others. Don’t limit yourself to similarities and differences between the two; let your mind play over the full range of char-acteristics that make them who they are. Now take a piece of paper and for about fi ve minutes describe the person you enjoy so that a stranger would understand what he or she is like. Skip physical characteristics, but list all of the attributes, mannerisms, and reactions to others that identify who he or she is. When you’ve fi nished the description, do the same thing for the person you don’t like. Again, write down all the personal characteristics or actions that you associate with that person. Spend about fi ve minutes on this description.

gri34307_ch08_098-112.indd Page 98 1/3/11 8:08 AM user-f469gri34307_ch08_098-112.indd Page 98 1/3/11 8:08 AM user-f469 /Volumes/208/MHSF234/gri34307_disk1of1/0073534307/gri34307_pagefiles/Volumes/208/MHSF234/gri34307_disk1of1/0073534307/gri34307_pagefile

CHAPTER 8: CONSTRUCTIVISM 99

The core assumption of constructivism is that “persons make sense of the world through systems of personal constructs.” 2 Constructs are the cognitive templates or stencils we fi t over reality to bring order to our perceptions. The Role Category Questionnaire is designed to sample the interpersonal constructs in our mental toolbox that we bring to the construction site of meaning—the central processing function of our minds. Much like sets of opposing terms (warm-cool, good-bad, fast-slow), constructs are contrasting features that we have available to classify other people. A police artist has an identifi cation kit with which an eyewitness can con-struct the face of a suspect. By systematically altering the shape of the chin, size of the nose, distance between the eyes, line of the hair, and so forth, the witness can build a likeness of the person in question. However, the RCQ doesn’t bother with physical features. It centers on the categories of personality and action that we use to defi ne the character of another person. The arena of politics offers a familiar example of the way we use constructs to describe another individual. All of us have our own bipolar dimensions of judgment that we apply to politicians. Some typical scales are liberal-conservative, steadfast-fl exible, competent-inept. The politically astute observer may draw on dozens of these interpretive orientations to describe shades of difference. There are conservatives, and there are social conservatives. Then there are articulate social conservatives. Some of them are belligerent, and so forth. On the other hand, those who are politically unsophisticated may use only one value-laden construct as they watch the six o’clock news. They see only winners and losers.

An Index of Social Perception Skills

Researchers who rely on the RCQ are trying to determine our degree of cognitive complexity as we form impressions of other people and analyze social situations. They are convinced that people with a large set of interpersonal constructs have better social perception skills than those whose set of mental templates is relatively small. Those skills include fi guring out others’ personality traits, where they stand in relationship to us, what they are doing, and why they are doing it. Impres-sion formation is the crucial fi rst step in relational development, and cogni-tively complex people have a defi nite advantage in that process. They also are better able to “take the role of the other,” the mental perspective-taking that makes humans unique, according to Mead (see Chapter 5). Brant Burleson (Purdue University), a longtime colleague of Delia in the constructivism proj-ect, maintains that those who have high levels of cognitive complexity are comparative experts when it comes to understanding the people and events in their social world. 3

Cognitive theorists like Delia and Burleson distinguish between mental struc-tures and mental processes . What you know about word processing on your com-puter may help you understand the different roles of structure and process in the mind. The computer hardware is the structure. What the software does when we strike a function key is the process. A four-year-old boy at a playground explained to me the difference between mental structure and mental process without ever using those terms. “My brain is like a jungle gym,” he said. “Think-ing is like climbing all over it.”

Interpersonal constructsThe cognitive templates or stencils we fit over social reality to order our impressions of people.

Role Category Questionnaire (RCQ)A free-response survey designed to measure the cognitive complexity of a person’s interpersonal perception.

Cognitive complexityThe mental ability to dis-tinguish subtle personality and behavior differences among people.

INTERPERSONAL CONSTRUCTS AS EVIDENCE OF COGNITIVE COMPLEXITY


100 INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION

Delia and Burleson are more concerned with the structure of our constructs than with the actual judgments we make. Consistent with that focus, it’s been said that there are two kinds of people in the world—those who think there are two kinds of people in the world and those who don’t. Constructivists believe that the fi rst kind of person is cognitively immature because he or she is able to see others only in terms of black and white. But the second type of person has developed into a sophisticated observer of the human scene, capable of distin-guishing subtle differences among people. When it comes to thinking about these differences, the Role Category Questionnaire is designed to gauge how intricate the jungle gym in your head might be.

Although the RCQ can be scored in different ways, most constructivist researchers cull the descriptions of liked and disliked peers for the amount of construct dif-ferentiation. Differentiation is defi ned as the number of separate personality con-structs used to portray the person in question. I’ll take you through a shorthand version of the scoring procedure so you can see how constructivists might rate you on cognitive complexity. Let’s assume you wrote about the personal characteristics of a friend named Chris and a co-worker named Alex. Add up the number of different descriptions you used to describe both people. As a rule of thumb, consider that each new term represents an additional mental construct. Seeing Chris as both sharp and competent would earn two points. So would a judgment that Alex is hurried and never has time. But there are exceptions to the one-term-equals-one-construct rule. Adjectives and adverbs that merely modify the extent of a characteristic don’t refl ect additional constructs. Score just one point if you wrote that Chris is totally sincere. Since idioms such as good ole boy have a single referent, they get a single point as well. On their own, physical descriptions (tall) and demographic labels (Irish) say nothing about character, so skip over them. Apart from these rules, close calls should get the benefi t of the doubt and score an extra point. Constructivists regard the combined number of constructs for both descrip-tions as an index of cognitive complexity. The higher your score, the more elabo-rate the structure within your mind over which your interpersonal perceptions play. I’ve seen individual scores as low as 6 and as high as 45, but about 70 per-cent of college students score between 15 and 25, with a mean of 20. Burleson interprets any score over 25 as a reliable indicator of high interpersonal cognitive complexity. Are RCQ scores really an accurate measure of cognitive complexity? Delia makes a good case for their validity. His claim that cognitive complexity devel-ops with a child’s chronological age is refl ected in progressively higher scores as youngsters grow older. He also believes that individual differences between adults should be relatively stable over time. That standard has been met through good test-retest reliability. Finally, Delia notes that a pure test of personality shouldn’t be confounded by other character traits or extraneous factors. Research has established that RCQ scores are independent of IQ, empathy, writing skill, and extroversion. Some critics charge that it’s merely a measure of loquacity, or wordiness, but construc-tivists maintain that high scores on this free-response test take more than the gift of gab. What’s required is a wide range of interpersonal constructs.

DifferentiationThe main component of cognitive complexity as measured by the number of separate personal con-structs used on the RCQ.

SCORING THE RCQ FOR CONSTRUCT DIFFERENTIATION



Now that you have an idea of what’s involved in cognitive complexity, we’ll consider the main hypothesis of constructivism. Delia and his colleagues claim that people who are cognitively complex in their perceptions of others have a communication advantage over those with less developed mental structures. These fortunate individuals have the ability to produce person-centered mes-sages that give them a better chance to achieve their communication goals. As Delia uses the phrase, person-centered messages refers to “messages which refl ect an awareness of and adaptation to subjective, affective, and relational aspects of the communication contexts.” 4 In other words, the speaker is able to anticipate how different individuals might respond to a message, and adjust his or her communication accordingly. The study by Ruth Ann Clark and Delia of second- to ninth-grade schoolchil-dren is a prototype of constructivist research that links person-centered messages to cognitive complexity. 5 It focused on the children’s ability to adapt persuasive appeals to different target listeners. After taking the RCQ orally, the kids were given the role-play task of convincing a woman they didn’t know to keep a lost puppy. Naturally, the quality of messages differed. Some children showed no real-ization that the woman’s perspective on the matter might be different from their own. Other kids recognized the difference but failed to adapt their message to this reality. A more sophisticated group took notice of the difference and were able to imagine what the woman was thinking. (“My husband will think I’m a sucker for every stray in town.”) They then could make an attempt to refute the counterarguments they knew their appeal would raise. The most sophisticated messages also stressed the advantages that would come to her if she complied with the request. (“Having a dog for a companion will take away some of the loneliness you feel at night when your husband is out of town. He’ll also feel better when he knows you’ve got a furry friend.”) Constructivists assume that strategic adaptation is a developmentally nur-tured skill. Consistent with their belief, Clark and Delia found that the quality of messages improved as the age of the children increased. But differences in con-struct differentiation that weren’t due to chronological age also had a signifi cant impact. Cognitively complex students were two years ahead of their same-age classmates in the ability to encode person-centered messages. Thus, the older kids who possessed cognitive complexity beyond their years were best able to take the perspective of the other and tailor the message to the individual listener.

Person-centered messageA tailor-made message for a specific individual and context; reflects the communicator’s ability to anticipate response and adjust accordingly.

CALVIN & HOBBES 1987 © Watterson. Distributed by Universal Uclick. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

PERSON-CENTERED MESSAGES—THE INTERPERSONAL EDGE


Stu

Text Box

The book contains a cartoon here. Permission to reproduce the cartoon was granted for the original publication only and does not include reproduction in the online archive.

Stu

Sticky Note

Marked set by Stu


Scholars who study communication use different terms to describe the capacity to create person-centered messages: rhetorical sensitivity, taking the role of the other, identifi cation, self-monitoring, audience awareness, listener adaptation. Whatever we call it, the creation of person-centered messages is a sophisticated communication skill . Constructivists say cognitively complex people can do it better. Note that constructivists don’t claim such people always do it, only that they have a capac-ity others don’t. The way constructivists put it is that cognitive complexity is a “necessary but not suffi cient condition” of person-centered messages.” 6 Fatigue, the effects of alcohol, or pressure to conform to a fi xed style of communication can mute the advantage. There are also many routine or mundane communication situations where this adaptive skill is neither called for nor particularly helpful. But when the stakes are high and emotions run deep, people who can craft per-son-centered messages are way ahead of the game.

Early versions of constructivism couldn’t pin down the reason high construct dif-ferentiation usually leads to more effective communication. Like a terse bumper sticker, the theory proclaimed cognitively complex persons can do it better, but Delia wasn’t sure why. By the late 1980s, however, other cognitive theorists had begun to develop models of message production that constructivists could use to explain the thought processes that tie cognitive structures to speech acts. Delia and his colleagues now consider the basic mental sequence that cognitive scientists outline as the miss-ing link that connects mental complexity with person-centered messages. For example, consider the workplace plight of a young single woman named Laura, whose married male boss suggests meeting together to talk about her career. At their business lunch he comes on to her—suggesting a sexual affair. Through no fault of her own, Laura’s been placed in a tough communication situation. 7 In order to understand her thought process, we’ll work through a goals-plans-action model of message production outlined by Pennsylvania State University communication professor James Dillard. 8

Goals

What does Laura want to accomplish? If her sole aim is to stop her employer’s sleazy suggestions once and for all, she might adopt a simple plan of attack that creates a message expressing the repulsion she feels:

You are the most rude and disgusting man I have ever met. You’re nothing but a dirty old man. Where do you get off thinking you could force me to have an affair with you? You make me sick. 9

But she may have another goal that’s equally important to her, such as keeping her job. If so, she would have two primary persuasive goals, which she has to juggle. In other situations, she might have different primary communication goals—to inform, advise, comfort, entertain, gain assistance, or alter a relation-ship. These goals are called primary because they “set into motion an ensemble of lower-level cognitive processes that occur in parallel and align with the over-all aim represented by the primary goal.” 10 The adoption of multiple primary goals usually prompts the rise of secondary goals. These additional but less important aims often confl ict with the primary

Message productionA three-stage process of goals assessed, plans selected, and tactics enacted (action).

Sophisticated communicationA person-centered mes-sage that accomplishes multiple goals.

MESSAGE PRODUCTION: CRAFTING GOAL-BASED PLANS FOR ACTION



goals. In Laura’s case, stopping the harassment and protecting her job require that she fi nd a way to save face for both her boss and herself. She needs to keep a good working relationship with him while preserving her professional identity and reputation. If, in fact, Laura does simultaneously pursue multiple interper-sonal goals, it’s a sign of her cognitive complexity. Burleson says that “people with high levels of interpersonal cognitive complexity . . . tend to develop more complex and sophisticated goals for many social situations, especially those that appear challenging or demanding.” 11 The number and variety of her interpersonal constructs also equip her to develop a multifaceted plan that can pull it off.

Plans

Once Laura knows what she wants her response to accomplish, she’ll devise a message plan using procedural records that are stored in her long-term memory. 12 According to John Greene, a colleague of Burleson’s at Purdue, a procedural record is a recollection of an action taken in a specifi c situation paired with its consequences—how things turned out. I think of it as a memory that has if-when-then implications for future actions. For example, suppose when Laura hears the unwanted sexual proposition from her boss, a long-dormant image pops into her conscious mind. She was 12 years old when the high school guy who lived next door suggested he give her kissing lessons. Confused and troubled by his offer, she laughed and treated the whole thing as a joke, although she knew he was serious. If she and her teenage neighbor maintained a casual, nonromantic rela-tionship after the incident, the procedural record fi led away in her long-term memory might take this form:

If I want to avoid getting physical and not offend a guy (goals), When he makes an improper sexual suggestion (situation), Then I should pretend he’s just kidding (action).

Laura may have more than a million procedural records in her long-term memory, but most of them aren’t applicable to the problem posed by her employer’s indecent proposal. The ones that will be activated and affect her message plan are the memories of times when she had similar goals in some-what similar circumstances. Although not a perfect fi t, the procedural record of how she handled her neighbor’s proposal is a close match and will probably inform her response to her boss. If she has lots of memories of successfully feigning ignorance of questionable motives in a variety of situations, this approach could become the top-down strategy that dictates all the other tactics in her message plan. In an article describing his basic goals-plans-action model of message pro-duction, Dillard addresses a number of frequently asked questions about con-structing a cognitive plan. 13 Perhaps you’ll fi nd that format helpful to better understand the thought process that Laura and the rest of us go through before we speak.

• What do we do fi rst? We search our long-term memory for tried-and-true, boil-erplate plans that are likely to achieve our primary goal(s).

• What if none of these prepackaged plans seem promising? We’ll make an existing plan more complete by fl eshing out the details, or we’ll make it more complex by adding steps to cover many contingencies.

Procedural recordThe recollection of an action taken in a specific situation paired with its consequences; an if-when-then memory.



• Are we consciously aware that we’re engaged in this mental process? Most of this mental activity takes place below our level of consciousness. Yet if someone asked us to refl ect on why we said what we did, we’d be able to identify the goals our plan was meant to serve.

• How long does it take for goals to activate procedural records and to assemble them into a message plan? Usually it’s a matter of milliseconds. But if we decide to create a novel message plan rather than adopting or adapting an existing one, the mental process will take more time and effort.

• Can we change the plan in midconversation? Defi nitely—and we usually do if we aren’t getting our hoped-for response. Berger’s hierarchy hypothesis (see Chapter 10) suggests that we will alter low-level elements of the plan such as word choice or facial expression—changes that won’t demand wholesale reor-ganization. If, however, we change our goals midstream, we automatically discard the original plan and adopt or create another one.

Action

Person-centered messages are the form of communication that Delia wants to explain, predict, and promote. Because cognitively complex people have the social perception to see the necessity of pursuing multiple goals and the skills to develop message plans to achieve them, they are the fortunate folks who can communicate skillfully when the situation demands it. Most people regard the communication context as a factor that limits a speaker’s options. It certainly seems that Laura is trapped in a no-win situation as the man who has power over her tries to use it to leverage sexual favors. But as a cognitively complex person, Laura has the ability to use context as a resource. The message she crafts parries her boss’ unwelcome advances, salvages her job, and saves face both for herself and for him:

We’ve got a great working relationship now, and I’d like us to work well together in the future. So I think it’s important for us to talk this out. You’re a smart and clear-thinking guy and I consider you to be my friend as well as my boss. That’s why I have to think you must be under a lot of unusual stress lately to have said something like this. I know what it’s like to be under pressure. Too much stress can really make you crazy. You probably just need a break. 14

Some readers are bothered by this response. In their minds, Laura’s words let her lecherous boss off the hook. These folks believe that a clear threat of exposure would be the appropriate way to block his sexual advances and possible retaliation for rejecting them. But from Laura’s perspective, a person-centered message is the best way to meet her multiple concerns in this complex situation. By framing her employer’s proposition as one that springs from stress rather than sleaze, Laura is able to achieve all her goals. I’ve used the words spoken by a woman to illustrate a person-centered mes-sage. That choice is appropriate because women display this crucial communica-tion skill more than men do. You therefore won’t be surprised that the average female scores three points higher for construct differentiation on the RCQ than her male counterpart. It turns out to be a difference that makes a difference when a sophisticated interpersonal message is called for. Burleson suggests that we can spot the reason for this gender discrepancy through the social life of children



and adolescents. When guys get together they typically talk about others in terms of external behaviors —the sports they play, the cars they drive, the battles they fi ght. Conversely, girls tend to talk about people —their perceptions of inter-nal motives, attitudes, traits, and personalities. As you’ll see by the end of the chapter, it’s by becoming sensitive to the inner life of others that a person’s set of interpersonal constructs grows.

Figure 8–1 portrays the linkages that constructivists have forged. High cognitive complexity facilitates sophisticated message plans, which in turn produce person-centered messages. Those links of the chain are well-established. Constructivist researchers have now turned to exploring the positive effects of person-centered messages on every conceivable form of communication outcome. We’ve already seen that these messages can be more persuasive. In this section I’ll highlight the fi ndings in three other areas of research that my students have found particularly interesting. Social support messages try to ease the emotional distress experienced by others. Burleson has developed a nine-stage hierarchical scale to code the degree of comfort a message of support offers. At the bottom end are messages that dismiss the thoughts and feelings of the person who is hurting. Moderately com-forting messages express sympathy, yet try to shift attention away from the other’s loss or offer explanations for why it occurred. Highly person-centered messages

Cognitive

Com

plexity

SophisticatedMessage Plans Person-Centered

MessagesBeneficialOutcomes

FIGURE 8–1 The Chain of Person-Centered Message Production

BENEFICIAL EFFECTS OF PERSON-CENTERED MESSAGES



validate the other’s feelings and may offer an additional perspective to the situa-tion.15 My student Camie describes the difference in the quality of support she felt after her beloved grandmother died.

That evening my best friend Aly took me outside on the patio and we watched the sunset. She put her arm around me and said, “Camie, I know you miss Grandma June tons right now. I can’t say anything to take away the pain or to ease the grief, but I am here for you. Cry on my shoulder whenever you need to and take com-fort in that she is with Jesus right now, helping him to paint this beautiful sky for us to watch.” I began to bawl and she just sat there with me and let me cry. It was so comforting. When I came back to school one of my roommates said, “I’m so sorry Camie. I had a grandmother die last year. Don’t think about it too much because it will just make you sadder. Know that she is with God.” I told her, “Thank you,” but inside I was screaming, “You idiot! That doesn’t give me any comfort.” Now that I’ve read about constructivism I realize that she may care about me just as much as Aly, but not have the degree of cognitive complexity she’d need to construct a person-centered message.

You may be surprised at Camie’s vehement reaction to her roommate’s mid-level message of support. But perhaps Camie has an interpersonal cognitive com-plexity that equals or surpasses what she sees in her friend Aly. Burleson has found that those who score high on the RCQ have the capacity to listen more acutely than others. One result of this in-depth listening ability is that person-centered assurances of support feel especially comforting and those that miss the mark strike them as clueless.16 In general, sophisticated messages are usually experi-enced as more comforting than clumsy attempts at social support. You hope that’s reward enough for the friend who offers well-chosen words in a time of need. But Burleson notes that other positive outcomes accrue to the sensitive comforter:

Compared to persons using less sophisticated comforting strategies, users of sophis-ticated strategies are better liked and more positively evaluated by both message recipients and observers. Further, users of sophisticated comforting strategies report feeling better both about themselves and those they try to help. 17

Relationship maintenance is a process distinct from relationship development. Voluntary relationships usually begin through mutual attraction, self-disclosure, and reduction of uncertainty. Once the relationship is established, however, its ongoing health requires periodic affi rmation, confl ict resolution, and the type of comforting communication that Burleson describes. As with any interpersonal skill, some people are better at relationship maintenance than others. Burleson and Wendy Samter of Bryant College fi gured that people with sophisticated commu-nication skills would be especially good at sustaining close friendships. It turns out they were only partially right. 18 To test their hypothesis, Burleson and Samter reviewed their own previous studies on friendship as well as the work of other researchers. They discovered a consistent pattern, which they labeled the similar skills model. To their surprise, individuals’ ability to give ego support, resolve confl ict, and provide comfort in times of stress did little to guarantee that their close personal relationships would survive and thrive. But the degree of similarity with their partner did. Friend-ships tended to last when partners possessed matching verbal skills—high or low. Apparently, highly refi ned communication skills are an advantage in friend-ship only when the other has the sophistication to appreciate them. And a person

Similar skills modelA hypothesis that relationships fare better when parties possess the same level of verbal sophistication.

gri34307_ch08_098-112.indd 6 1/3/11 8:08 AM user-f469gri34307_ch08_098-112.indd Page 106 1/3/11 8:08 AM user-f469 /Volumes/208/MHSF234/gri34307_disk1of1/0073534307/gri34307_pagefiles/Volumes/208/MHSF234/gri34307_disk1of1/0073534307/gri34307_pagefile


with few of these abilities may be more comfortable spending time with someone who likes the same activities, can tell a good story, and isn’t always “talking about feelings” or “pushing that touchy-feely crap.” 19

Organizational effectiveness isn’t determined by a single sophisticated message. According to constructivist theory, high performance and promotion refl ect a continual use of person-centered communication that seeks to achieve multiple goals with customers and co-workers. Employees who do it better should climb the corporate ladder faster. Beverly Sypher (Purdue University) and Theodore Zorn (University of Waikato, New Zealand) conducted a longitudinal study of 90 white-collar work-ers at a large U.S. insurance company. 20 At the start of the study they measured cognitive complexity with the RCQ, tested for perspective-taking ability, and gauged communication skill by asking employees to write a charitable fundrais-ing appeal. As expected, workers with highly developed social constructs wrote letters that were more persuasive. Four years later, Sypher and Zorn checked each employee’s progress within the company. Cognitively complex workers had better-paying jobs and were moving up through the ranks of the company faster than were their less complex colleagues. Anytime we deal with people, cognitive complexity seems to play a signifi cant role.

In early editions of this text, I chided constructivists for not addressing the ques-tion of how cognitively complex thinkers get that way. That’s no longer a fair criticism. Burleson, Delia, and James Applegate of the University of Kentucky have marshaled evidence that complex thinking is a culturally transmitted trait. Specifi cally, they suggest that parents’ capacity for complex social thinking is re-created in their children through complex messages of nurture and disci-pline. 21 Their claim is an extension of the truism that culture is produced and reproduced through the communication of its members. Suppose, for example, a 5-year-old boy picks a fl ower from a neighbor’s yard without permission and presents it to his mother. Almost any parent can scold the kid for stealing. (“Taking people’s things without asking is wrong. Now go and apologize for taking the fl ower.”) But it requires a mother with a complex set of interpersonal constructs to create a sophisticated message that encourages refl ection and helps her son focus on the motivation, feelings, and intentions of others—mental exercises that increase the child’s own cog-nitive complexity. After warmly thanking her son for the gift, such a mom might say:

When people work hard to have things (fl owers), they usually want to keep them to appreciate them. Mrs. Jones might have given you a fl ower if you’d asked, but taking things from people without asking upsets them a lot.

Who is most likely to use this form of sophisticated socialization? According to Burleson, Delia, and Applegate, parents from more advantaged socioeconomic backgrounds are likely candidates. They inhabit a world of intricate work envi-ronments, role systems, and social expectations. This more complicated social world stimulates the development of more complex ways of thinking and com-municating. And once developed, complex ways of thinking and acting tend to perpetuate themselves. The culture $ complexity $ communication path seems

SOCIALIZING A NEW GENERATION OF SOPHISTICATED SPEAKERS



to ensure that, cognitively speaking, the rich get richer. This cognitive fact of life was obvious to me in a paper submitted by Jane, a 40-year-old grad student in an interpersonal communication class. She recorded the precocious words of her 7-year-old daughter, Sunny, a child raised in the midst of sophisticated adult conversation.

Mom, is nonverbal communication like when you don’t point your face at me when we’re talking about my day? Or when you say “Uh-huh” and “Really?” but your face doesn’t move around like you really care what we’re talking about? When you walk around cooking or Dad writes while we’re talking, I feel like I’m boring. Some-times when you guys talk to me it sounds like you’re just teaching, not talking.

Constructivists would note that Sunny can refl ect on her social world because communication from mother Jane has been anything but plain.

Delia launched what he called an interpretive theory of cognitive differences in the 1970s, when most communication scientists were trying to discover laws of behavior that applied equally to everyone. While these empirical researchers were assessing communication effectiveness by crunching the numbers from standardized attitude scales, Delia called for “free-response data” that could refl ect subtle differences in mental processes. He believed that open-ended responses would also force researchers to become theoretically rigorous. Con-structivist analysis of person-centered messages clearly meets that goal. Constructivists’ total reliance on the RCQ to gauge cognitive complexity is another story. It’s diffi cult to accept the notion that a single number adequately refl ects the intricate mental structures that exist behind the eyes. Doesn’t it seem curious to ask respondents for their perceptions of two other people and then reduce their rich narratives to a mere frequency count of constructs? The total number may predict interesting communication differences, but explanatory depth is lacking. A prophetic ethical voice also seems to be missing. If cognitive complexity is the key to interpersonal effectiveness, and if construct differentiation is enhanced by a privileged upbringing, advocates of the theory should devote some effort to creating refl ective settings for disadvantaged kids. That way black-and-white thinkers could develop the ability to see shades of gray. There are precedents for such a reform agenda. Once medical researchers discovered the brain-deadening effects of lead poi-soning, they were quick to mount a public campaign to stop the use of lead-based paint. Likewise, teachers lobbied for “Project Head Start” when they realized that food for the stomach was a prerequisite of food for thought. Obviously poverty, peeling paint, and poor nutrition are linked, and constructivist research suggests that a childhood devoid of refl ection-inducing communication is part of the same vicious circle. Constructivism is open to the charge of elitism unless the theorists devise a plan for remedial efforts that will help narrow the gap between the “haves” and the “have-nots.” Burleson is keenly aware of this weakness:

As a communication researcher and educator, I fi nd this situation embarrassing and unacceptable. We researchers now know a lot about cognitive complexity and advanced social perception and communication skills, but thus far there have been few efforts to translate what we know into proven programs that effectively enhance these skills . 22

CRITIQUE: SECOND THOUGHTS ABOUT COGNITIVE COMPLEXITY



More than most scholars, constructivists are capable of spearheading a reform movement to shape public policy. Early on, Delia made a strong call for a “refl ec-tive analysis of the implicit assumptions and ordering principles underlying research questions and methods.”23 He launched a research program that models that commitment, and others have enlisted in the cause. As one of the best known theories about communication to spring from within the discipline, constructiv-ism is worth thinking about.

In this discussion, Jesse Delia (right) is joined by Brant Burleson (center) and Jim Applegate (left), the other leading theorists on the constructivist research team. They link our ability to communicate effectively with our mental con-structs, our degree of cognitive complexity, the way we process information, and the way we form impressions of others. The theorists then describe the advantages of crafting person-centered messages that are designed to accom-plish multiple goals. How well do you think Delia, Burleson, and Applegate adapt their messages to their audience—students of communication theory? Do you think the theorists are pursuing multiple goals? If so, do they suc-ceed?

View this segment online at www.mhhe.com/griffi n8 or

www.afi rstlook.com.

CONVERSATIONS

A SECOND LOOK Recommended resource: Brant R. Burleson, “Constructivism: A General Theory of Com-munication Skill,” in Explaining Communication: Contemporary Theories and Exemplars, Bryan Whaley and Wendy Samter (eds.), Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 2007, pp. 105–128.

Early statement: Jesse Delia, Barbara J. O’Keefe, and Daniel O’Keefe, “The Constructiv-ist Approach to Communication,” in Human Communication Theory, F. E. X. Dance (ed.), Harper & Row, New York, 1982, pp. 147–191.

Classic research study: Brant R. Burleson, “The Constructivist Approach to Person-Centered Communication: Analysis of a Research Exemplar,” in Rethinking Communication, Vol. 2, Brenda Dervin, Lawrence Grossberg, Barbara J. O’Keefe, and Ellen Wartella (eds.), Sage, Newbury Park, CA, 1989, pp. 29–36.

1. How many points for differentiation would the phrase “humorous and totally funny” score on the Role Category Questionnaire? 2. Look at the Calvin and Hobbes cartoon on page 101. How would constructivists explain Calvin’s success in getting a horsey ride from his father? 3. Sometimes during an argument, one kid will chide another with the words “Aw, grow up!” According to constructivists, the phrase offers good advice in a way that’s ineffective. Why? 4. Osama bin Laden constructed a highly effective terrorist campaign that refl ects sophisticated message plans. Can you explain why the successful achieve-ment of his goals does not necessarily show that he is cognitively complex as Delia uses the term?

QUESTIONS TO SHARPEN YOUR FOCUS



Comprehensive research review: Brant R. Burleson and Scott Caplan, “Cognitive Com-plexity,” in Communication and Personality: Trait Perspectives, James McCroskey, John Daly, and Matthew Martin (eds.), Hampton Press, Cresskill, NJ, 1998, pp. 233–286.

Role Category Questionnaire: Brant R. Burleson and Michael S. Waltman, “Cognitive Com-plexity: Using the Role Category Questionnaire Measure,” in A Handbook for the Study of Human Communication, Charles Tardy (ed.), Ablex, Norwood, NJ, 1988, pp. 1–35.

Message production in the mind: James Price Dillard, “The Goals-Plans-Action Model of Interpersonal Infl uence,” in Perspectives on Persuasion, Social Infl uence, and Compliance Gaining, John Seiter and Robert Gass (eds.), Pearson, Boston, MA, 2003, pp. 185–206.

In-depth listening: Brant R. Burleson, “A Constructivist Approach to Listening,” Inter-national Journal of Listening, in press.

Social support: Wendy Samter, “How Gender and Cognitive Complexity Infl uence the Provision of Emotional Support: A Study of Indirect Effects,” Communication Reports, Vol. 15, 2002, pp. 5–16.

Relationship maintenance: Brant R. Burleson and Wendy Samter, “A Social Skills Approach to Relationship Maintenance,” in Communication and Relationship Maintenance, Daniel Canary and Laura Stafford (eds.), Academic Press, San Diego, CA, 1994, pp. 61–90.

Developing cognitive complexity: Brant R. Burleson, Jesse Delia, and James Applegate, “The Socialization of Person-Centered Communication: Parental Contributions to the Social-Cognitive and Communication Skills of Their Children,” in Perspectives in Family Communication, Mary Anne Fitzpatrick and Anita Vangelisti (eds.), Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1995, pp. 34–76.

Review and critique: John Gastil, “An Appraisal and Revision of the Constructivist Research Program,” in Communication Yearbook 18, Brant R. Burleson (ed.), Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1995, pp. 83–104.

To access a chapter on Greene’s action assembly theory that appeared in a previous edition, click on Theory List at

www.afi rstlook.com .


111

R e l a t i o n s h i p D e v e l o p m e n t

Think about your closest personal relationship. Is it one of “strong, frequent and diverse interdependence that lasts over a considerable period of time?”1 That’s how UCLA psychologist Harold Kelley and eight co-authors defi ne the concept of close relationship. Though their defi nition could apply to parties who don’t even like each other, most theorists reserve the term close for relationships that include a positive bond—usually romantic, friend, and family. All three types of intimacy can provide enjoyment, trust, sharing of confi dences, respect, mutual assistance, and spontaneity.2 The question is, How do we develop a close relationship? Two distinct approaches have dominated the theory and practice of rela-tional development. One experiential approach is typifi ed by humanistic psycholo-gist Carl Rogers. Based upon his years of nondirective counseling, Rogers described three necessary and suffi cient conditions for relationship growth. When partners perceived (1) congruence; (2) unconditional positive regard; and (3) empathic understanding of each other, they could and would draw closer.3

Congruence is the match or fi t between an individual’s inner feelings and outer display. The congruent person is genuine, real, integrated, whole, trans-parent. The noncongruent person tries to impress, plays a role, puts up a front, hides behind a facade. “In my relationship with persons,” Rogers wrote, “I’ve found that it does not help, in the long run, to act as though I was something I was not.”4

Unconditional positive regard is an attitude of acceptance that isn’t contingent upon performance. Rogers asked, “Can I let myself experience positive attitudes toward this other person—attitudes of warmth, caring, liking, interest, and respect?”5 When the answer was yes, both he and his clients matured as human beings. They also liked each other. Empathic understanding is the caring skill of temporarily laying aside our views and values and entering into another’s world without prejudice. It is an active process of seeking to hear the other’s thoughts, feelings, tones, and mean-ings as if they were our own. Rogers thought it was a waste of time to be suspi-cious or to wonder, What does she really mean? He believed that we help people most when we accept what they say at face value. We should assume that they describe their world as it really appears to them. Rogerian ideas have permeated the textbooks and teaching of interper-sonal communication.6 The topics of self-disclosure, nonverbal warmth, empathic listening, and trust are mainstays of an introductory course. The other approach assumes that relationship behavior is shaped by the rewards and costs of interaction. In 1992, University of Chicago economist Gary Becker won the Nobel Prize in economics on the basis of his application of supply-and-demand market models to predict the behavior of everyday living, including love and marriage.7 News commentators expressed skepticism that matters of the heart could be reduced to cold numbers, but the economic meta-phor has dominated social science discussions of interpersonal attraction and behavior for the last fi ve decades. The basic assumption of most relational theo-rists is that people interact with others in a way that maximizes their personal benefi ts and minimizes their personal costs.



Numerous parallels exist between the stock market and relationship market:

Law of supply and demand. A rare, desirable characteristic commands higher value on the exchange.Courting a buyer. Most parties in the market prepare a prospectus that highlights their assets and downplays their liabilities.Laissez-faire rules. Let the buyer beware. All’s fair in love and war. It’s a jungle out there.Expert advice. Daily newspapers around the country carry syndicated advice columns by Michelle Singletary (“The Color of Money”) and Abigail Van Buren (“Dear Abby”). Whether the topic is money or love, both columnists suggest cautious risk taking.Investors and traders. Investors commit for the long haul; traders try to make an overnight killing.

Even from these brief summaries, you can tell that a humanistic model of rela-tional development is quite different from an economic model of social exchange. Yet both models affect each of the theories presented in this section. All three regard communication as the means by which people can draw close to one another. Each considers instant intimacy a myth; relationships take time to develop and they don’t always proceed on a straight-line trajectory toward that goal. In fact, most relationships never even get close. Yet some peo-ple do have deep, satisfying, long-lasting relationships. Why do they develop close ties when others don’t? Each of the theories in this section offers an answer.

“I’ve done the numbers, and I will marry you.”

© William Hamilton/The New Yorker Collection/www.cartoonbank.com


Constructivism – Jessie Delia

Documents

Transcript of Constructivism – Jessie Delia